The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

I don't disagree, that their is a correlation between genetics and morphology.  What I disagree with, is the representation that is being given (and not equally).   It seems fair, that if an overly simplified explanation is going to be given for the one, then I can do it too. 

Except in the design case presented thus far, it's not an oversimplification, it's just an honest representation. I don't know how anyone could read through this thread and see any form of cogent justification for design: we spent approximately ten thousand hours talking about probabilities, which is a completely irrelevant issue, and yet when asked about the probability of a designer god, our design proponents go curiously silent. We spent some time talking scientific citations, yet at the first pass it becomes clear that the designbros just want to cherry pick, and that when the science seems to support design then it's valid, but when it specifically contradicts design, even within the same paper, then it should be discarded as making "no sense," demonstrating that what makes citations valid to the design advocates is merely whether or not they support the design conclusion, rendering their citations nothing more than presuppositional circle jerking with no means of determining what a real source of knowledge even is. We discussed transitional forms, and the cdesign proponentsists asserted that there were none for a few given subsets of animals, and then when shown these apparently non-existent transitionals, they stamped their feet and said we couldn't demonstrate that they were actually related: when we did that, they just shrugged, said "okay," and tried to move on as though nothing had happened. We talked protein chemistry, which only showed that the design guys refused to examine evolution's claims by the method of evolution, continuing to assume that DNA would have to pop into existence fully formed in its modern iteration instead of evolving from simpler things.

And all throughout, no matter the topic, despite whatever refutations we brought to the table, the design guys insisted on arguing from ignorance and false dichotomies, mistaking arguments against evolution for arguments for design, as if just proving one wrong makes the other right by default. Every single thing the design proponents said was purely negative, aimed at poking holes in evolution, and as a result we still have no clear idea how they actually recognize design, merely that they insist that they do: pointing at things and saying "that looks designed," is literally the only thing they've done, while the rest of us brought the fossil record, genetics and so on to the table, and an honest accounting of the contents of this thread, bearing in mind how evidence actually works, aptly demonstrates this.

It's not an oversimplification merely because the design position espoused here is so unfortunately, deeply anemic. It's not our fault that they have brought nothing positive to the table, and pretending that we've done likewise is profoundly intellectually dishonest.

So far, it seems we have X,Y,and Z vs the intuitive knowledge, that a watch didn't just naturally fall into place from physical forces plus chance to wind up on the beach.

I do hope you're just joking about this "intuitive knowledge," thing. If you're serious I'll refute it but... come on.